The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this is analogous. Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed. The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery.

The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it. If you were trying to explain to me some complex physics problem, I'd agree with you, but it's a bit hard to accept the same with reference to transubstantiation when the explanation you offer is to tell me that it's just one of those mysteries. I think a better response would be to take pause and then declare that the emperor wears no clothes. That often takes more courage than blind acceptance.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know. — Agustino

What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? Try what out?

Take it like this. If you don't know English, and I'm speaking to you, and I say "water" and point to a glass of water, you will know what I mean by water. And we will have the same definition. You don't know the language, so, on faith, you accept it that "water" refers to whatever I point to.

You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. So it's best if you accept the definition of God that I point to, and then ask constructive questions about it. Such as, if God is found in this experience (meditation), why does the Church insist on these particular set of rituals? Why do I have to say I believe in order to be saved? Etc.

The problem with God is that I cannot point to God the way I point to a glass of water. God is not a sense experience, but more like a meaning, or a pattern, something that is subtle and must be directly perceived. So I can force you to experience a glass of water and become aware of it, but I cannot force you, on command, to experience God.

People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. — Harry Hindu

Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?

If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving. — Harry Hindu

Depends. According to Christianity, the gates of hell are locked from within. God cannot force people out of hell against their own will - at least He can't if He is loving and respects their free will.

What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? — Harry Hindu

To experience it.

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. — Harry Hindu

Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation.

If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is. — Harry Hindu

Saying that virtually 90%+ of people (an estimate of the religious) who have ever lived were deluded is indeed a form of grandiose delusion.

You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. — Agustino

The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite.

And I think this conversation has changed objectives to something far more moderate, which is simply to argue for the possibility of a higher power, which, from my perspective, is far more defensible than arguing for the validity of transubstantiation. The vagueness of what God is allows plenty of room for acceptance, whereas transubstantiation is a very specific doctrine clarified by the Catholic Church that does not offer much wiggle room for skeptics to take it seriously.

But to the extent that we're now just arguing that there might be some higher power out there, there seems not to be much controversy in accepting such a claim other than by pretty committed atheists. I'm not saying atheists have nothing significant to say in that regard, but I do know that if that were the focus of the OP, we wouldn't be in the 28th page. It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion.

Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation. — Agustino

You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them.

What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion.

You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation.

The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how the last part follows.

What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion. — Harry Hindu

In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible.

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead. — Agustino

What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age?

What about what happened before we were born? Were we non-existent? What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? How did you come by this information? Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly?

I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation. — Agustino

Exactly. My point is that in order to receive salvation, one must experience things the way you experience them. In other words, we must simply accept your own understanding of your own experiences and hope that ours is like yours without fully knowing what your experience is.

In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible. — Agustino

Sure, now try that with god. What kind of experience should I have to know that it is god?

The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how the last part follows. — Agustino

Then you need to explain your distinction between seeing and experiencing.

The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite. — Hanover

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.

higher power — Hanover

I, personally, made no mention of a "higher power" as of yet, as that is another thing that requires definition and must be sought for within experience.

It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion. — Hanover

What actually happened in this thread was that the secular crowd rejected the definitions (and understandings) of transubstantiation offered by the theistic crowd, and therefore they've been off-topic all along. The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.

The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. — Hanover

A symptom of a grandiose delusion.

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino

It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word "God" refers to, you ignorant dolt.

I devoted my entire first half of my life to God. I was saved, baptized, read the Bible, went to church, and I still ended up rejecting it when I opened my mind to other alternatives, which included other religions, philosophies and science, that didn't carry all this unnecessary and contradictory baggage. How do you, Agustino, explain how people who have studied it, come to different conclusions?

What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age? — Harry Hindu

Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife.

What about what happened before we were born? — Harry Hindu

We don't remember anything, so I take that as we didn't exist. Scripture makes no reference to this state.

What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? — Harry Hindu

Who said just to be resurrected? The point was to live in communion with God, and be an image of God on Earth. But man sinned, and things spiralled out of control. God was faithful to mankind and has kept saving and protecting man, and ultimately guiding him towards redemption. That is our history.

How did you come by this information? — Harry Hindu

Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, personal revelation (experience) and reason.

Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly? — Harry Hindu

Sure.

It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word God refers to, you ignorant dolt. — Harry Hindu

What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined, at least with reference to what "God" refers to?

What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined? — Agustino

Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion.

Do people who study astrology really know more that those that don't? You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge?

You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge? — Harry Hindu

Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.

Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion. — Harry Hindu

So you disagree with the reason given? Based on what considerations?

Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife. — Agustino

That didn't answer my question about what age we will be when ressurrected. Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?

Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to. — Agustino

A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others?

Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means? — Harry Hindu

It will very likely be different, since creation is in a fallen state now, and after the Resurrection it won't be. How it will be different, it hasn't been revealed to us. Some people, including in the Church, do have opinions, but those are just opinions. I'm personally of the opinion that bodies will not age in the afterlife. If you want, I can explain to you why I think so.

A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others? — Harry Hindu

Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them (while others don't).

Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them. — Agustino

So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it. — Agustino

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? Your argument suggests that they know better what the term, "God" refers to. You seem unwilling to admit that there are others that have studied "God" more than you and have come up with a different idea of God, or that it doesn't exist at all - a symptom of a grandiose delusion.

Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic. — Benkei

Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you.

Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed. — Hanover

If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary.

The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery. — Hanover

That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation. But that does not incline anyone to loose faith in the use of these symbols. So I really don't believe that it is the simple fact that transubstantiation is a mystery which inclines you to have no faith in it. I think that there is something else about it that you do not like, so you refer to this "mystery" as a scapegoat, an excuse to reject it. It's as if I didn't like mathematics for some reason, so I turn to the mystery of why "2" is used, and why "3" is used, and why all the other symbols are used, instead of some other symbols, as an excuse to reject the proceedings of mathematics for being based in something "mysterious". The very act of having faith is the means for accepting that which is a mystery. To withhold faith from everything which is a mystery would produce the ultimate skeptic. You don't appear like the ultimate skeptic, so I think your withholding of faith is not really because it is a mystery.

The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it. — Hanover

The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument.

Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correctness in language use is a matter of correspondence with reality. Or use in itself and convention, or whatever other theory you'd like to adhere to. Faith isn't involved as these are things we can observe. People say "goodbye" or point to the "moon". We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. In your case, I simply pointed out the idiosyncracy of claiming "faith" is involved when deciding something is bread or wine. Hmmm... guess what! These are observable facts! Amazing! No faith involved.

So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? — Harry Hindu

Depends what the terms are in question are.

So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu

That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu

Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.

And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination.

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. — Agustino

This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority.

The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation. — Agustino

I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout.

If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion.

The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations.

That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago.

The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

My point remains that your argument was from the point of view that we ought be humble regarding those things we don't understand and try to understand them. The concept of humility when faced with otherwise preposterous beliefs if often presented by theists as the best way to try to understand them.

We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. — Benkei

So I go to a number of different Catholic churches and observe that the items are referred to as body and blood of Christ, so I ascertain that this convention exists. You perform your tests, and insist that the items are stale bread and bad wine. Why should I accept your unclarified claim that what you say "corresponds with reality", over the convention of the church, which are very clear. Your claim of "corresponds with reality" is just a covert appeal to convention with your definitions of bread and wine being nothing but convention. I am very suspicious of such covert activity so I prefer the Church's position where the role of convention is fully exposed, and not concealed by a claim of "corresponds with reality"